W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > May 2000

Re: Use cases

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 15:31:24 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200005221431.PAA16410@nag.co.uk>
To: jcowan@reutershealth.com
CC: xml-uri@w3.org

>   The absolutizing interpretation is merely implicit.

I tried, I really tried, including re-reading the namespace spec and 
rfc2396 and I still can not see any way that one can infer the 
absolutizing interpretation.

If W3C want to change to that, so be it, but this would be a change to
an existing spec (in a non compatible way) not in anyway a clarification
of a possible interpretation of the current spec.

Can someone who believes that it is possible to infer the absolute
interpretation from the current texts tell me where the following logic
breaks down.

Namespaces are defined to be URI references, with an explicit
character-for-character equality test.

rfc 2396 does _not_ assert that the relative URI references.
./foo and foo are equal.  In fact they are not equal as URI references
note the plural, reference_s_.

What rfc 2396 establishes is the mechanism to get from a URI reference
(and a base URI) to the absolute URI.
This mechanism _does_ involve removing the ./ but to say that two URI
references that (given a base URI) always refer to the same URI
is just like saying two pointers that point to the same thing are 
always the same pointer which normally speaking is false.

Furthermore the rfc says 

   these path components [. and ..] are only considered special
   when resolving a relative-path reference to its absolute form

and since the namespace is defined to be the URI reference with no
mention of the resulting absolute URI, where is the possible
implication that this resolution is supposed to be carried out?

David
Received on Monday, 22 May 2000 10:32:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:42 UTC